Let's get this straight, because there's no room for confusion on this one:
In reference to your paragraph below:
Let's say I say that Gaddafi (or Saddam Hussein or Stalin or Franco
etc.) should be overthrown by his own people -- and that the workers
should lead that struggle so that the end result is a more democratic,
more genuinely anti-imperialist and anticapitalist country.
By saying that, I am LYING -- or at best mistaken -- when I claim to
be against imperialist intervention in that country, because
"objectively (if indirectly)" my claims that Gaddafi (et al.) have
committed crimes coincide with imperialist rationales for
intervention.
Therefore I must not criticize Gaddafi (et al.).
Right?
> So why does ANSWER at its forums and demonstrations ALLOW pro-Gaddafi speakers (like Cynthia McKinney and Akbar Muhammed) to speak, and not allow people calling for Gaddafi's ouster to speak? Because the former are also opposed to the U.S./NATO intervention, whereas the latter, even if some of them claim to oppose the bombing, objectively (if indirectly) support it by echoing imperialist rationales for intervention, and reinforcing them in the minds of Americans, thus INCREASING support for the intervention, whatever their alleged opposition to it.